zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Brainstorming: Theories/Speculation
Idk. I'm still against them....strongly...if we were to improve them, they would be so drastic it would be to the point where they won't be considered theories. (and potentially remove ones that are obviously true/false). Everyone repeats the same thing, but don't try to elaborate harder onto their point (and even go up to say they are out of line for suggesting such a big change) So here's my way of improving. Instead of having "it has been theorized..." or "Some fans theorize..." we instead put it "It has been suggested that...". But then again not all of them fit into that....but still....theories is the only thing that makes this wiki so whack (no offense to you who contribute it). The problem with the theories sections is that they're anything but encyclopedic, they're blog/forum-like.Ilaria Mask (talk) 22:56, September 1, 2011 (UTC) :What you are suggesting is a very minor wording change, and personally I don't think it improves anything. Don't talk about the other forum or what people said in it, there is a very good reason a new conversation was started from scratch.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:03, September 1, 2011 (UTC) ::Actually if you think about it a little harder on it, you'll see a big difference. But i suppose i'll spell it out anyways. ::Basically not every theory can fall into that situation where "it has been suggested" as per some theories would be heavily abstract to do (i basically removes the in-game information from the heavily reasoning by the one person). Again...like i said before, removing th fan0oriented from the within series-oriented). :::I see what you're saying, but every theory is based on something in the game. I think you are just bothered by some of the less strongly supported ideas, and other people might be bothered by them too (myself included). Again, I think these can only be effectively addressed individually. There is a huge range of ways a theory can be supported, and strengths at which it is supported. I think the subject is far too variable to agree on exactly where to draw the line and then go about changing everything without discussing individual theories. Also, you are still being insulting; be warned there is a limit to how far you can take that.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:45, September 1, 2011 (UTC) ::::The strongly-less supported ones are the most controversial subjects actually (and some little ones might be out there as i see in Kafei being link's termina counterpart based mainly on his physical). The "strongly" supported are practically considered fact as i mentioned with Cremia in love with Kafei (yet somehow the deku butler's son doesn't have enough evidence to consider the withered deku being the deku bultler's son without question?) ::::I think, because the information here isn't displayed so straight-forward, It makes it hard to what consider theory and implied answer (meaning if it was strongly implied within-game, than we might as well not call it a "theory" but something that the game intentionally strongly suggested). "it has been implied/suggested..." helps fix that problem....i don't know if anyone visits the spanish zelda wiki, but it's a good wiki to take example of(i know some things aren't perfect and not correct within the timeline issue., but the method of handling information i so neutral it doesn't need the use of theory sections. So it solves that problem quite well). ::::If we're going to add theories....it should probably be kept for the most controversial subjects (as those are the most popular ones).Ilaria Mask (talk) 02:12, September 2, 2011 (UTC) Anyone? --AuronKaizer ' 09:33, September 2, 2011 (UTC) :i don't think this you'll get much of an answer...the theory sections are more closer to personal preference. Which is also why it varies.Ilaria Mask (talk) 11:20, September 2, 2011 (UTC) I'm going to request that this discussion be put to a standstill until any people ''new to this discussion come in and think of ideas. We get it, Ilaria Mask, you don't like theory sections, but your ideas don't really help anything; as Fierce Deku said, it's easier to get rid of the ones that are widely regarded to be bad individually. There is nothing you can do right now about the theory sections because no one agrees with you about them. One person can't win against four or so in a wiki-wide discussion like this. I'd like to see the rest of this discussion remain inactive until another user partakes in the discussion with constructive ideas regarding theory sections. We're not getting anywhere and this certainly is not brainstorming. -'''Minish Link 16:33, September 2, 2011 (UTC) Perhaps.... separate them from the article itself? Like either a Theory mainspace or formatted like "General Cornwallis/Theories"—'Triforce' 14 17:39, September 2, 2011 (UTC) :While this would clean up our mainspace, I worry that it's more like sweeping theories under the rug rather than actually improving them. There's an "articles with theoretical information" category, right? I (& maybe some others?) can make an effort to start going through theories, strengthening arguments for, adding evidence against, & suggesting the removal of especially flimsy ones in Talk pages. I know that's not an instant (nor relevatory) solution, but if people think it would help, I'm glad to do it. Knives182 (talk) 18:08, September 2, 2011 (UTC) ::I agree that it'd be sweeping theories under the rug to remove them from the main article. I think we can maintain the articles' encyclopedic integrity if we check over the theories like Knives is saying, add evidence, make the wording better indicate their strength, remove any we agree are too weak, etc.. Category:Articles incorporating theory is automatically added as part of the theory tag template, so that list should be all inclusive (239 at the time of this writing). I can also start combing through them from time to time to make improvements.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 18:33, September 2, 2011 (UTC) :::Sounds good to me. It seems like the best option at this point to nix any theories that are just too weak and improve the wording of the others. -'Minish Link' 19:13, September 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::I like the idea of a theory mainspace. I don't think it's like sweeping it under the rug....it's more like re-organizing content that is highly subjective from the factual information. And if it cleans up the main space, than i don't think there's any problem with it. ::::There's nothing encyclopedic about theories unless they are recognized somewhere other than fans and noted as a theory recognized by someone outside the bias group (not referring to wiki specifically but fans everywhere). Even if reworded, because at the moment, the key problems of the wording is only helping it not lie within it. They're too fan-contributed, fan subjective, and the idea is to give answers when there are none (yet) to those who are apparently lost (which there's nothing wrong with that). ::::And again, grazing the surface of what I'm saying. one of the problems is that the theories are too subjective. Such as Cremia-Kafei-Deku butler's son vary between the level of theories some consider them facts, the others are made completely by theory. Nixing the weak ones is a good idea, as long as there's no exception. But also theories can't be made for everything that hasn't been properly explained or giving a direct answer (even if a theory is plausible). Which is why it's best to keep them for more controversial subjects. Some theories need to be incorporated as facts aswell and not only nix the weak ones but nix the not important ::::But still...i like the idea of moving them somewhere other than the articles. they're too outside perspective, outside trivial-fan perspective.Ilaria Mask (talk) 20:27, September 2, 2011 (UTC) Knives182 has suggested the best idea so far, I think. There are likely several cases where we should either balance the evidence for and against them or remove the ones that are both not noteworthy and lack real support. Removal would obviously be discussed on individual talk pages. Jedimasterlink (talk) 21:58, September 3, 2011 (UTC) :Still feels like personal preference...if one method helps clean the information even if separated from the main article, but suggest something else that won't directly solve it completely (which was even admitted). I don't really understand, and some people aren't trying to make sense of this.Ilaria Mask (talk) 09:26, September 4, 2011 (UTC) I kinda like that Triforce guy's idea of subpages.—'Triforce' 14 16:48, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :I don't see subpages as a particularly bad idea, but I personally don't prefer it (though maybe that's just me). It just seems kind of out-of-place and, as others said, 'sweeping it nder the rug'. Directing users to a theory subpage via the article could, of course, be done, but it'd seem a little odd to me and I'm personally still in agreement with Knives/FD/Jedi. -'Minish Link' 17:31, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Just going to jump in on my opinion of the subpages. The Pokémon Wiki has subpages for things like Galleries, I personally hate it, I feel that what is seperated from one page can be kept on the original page, unless it is entirely out of the scope, much like the gossip stone quotes. And now, on the subject of a subpage for thi theories, I don't think it'd be a bad idea, as it is somewhat out of the scope of the page, and therefore would probably work better on a subpage. – ''Jäzz '' 20:11, September 6, 2011 (UTC) Adding my opinion! I believe theories should remain. The Legend of Zelda universe is unique for giving this hints of background information. Nintendo does this on purpose, even so that Zelda hardcore fanatism is synonym of Zelda games timeline theorization of some-kind, so theories make an important part of Zelda and we cannot treat Zeldapedia the same as any wikia in that matter. Additional thought: Subpages are not practical, many pages have only one paragraph of theory, we can't just make another page just for that paragraph. Also, even when some pages have really theory without facts, that doesn't mean all are like that. I agree that we'll need some cleaning but that is specifically to each page. --—'TheNewSheik' 18:09, September 25, 2011 (UTC)